4 ms·

Meanwhile, I'd like to point out a little phenomenon. Facebook: We're banning "fake news". HN: Oh, this was so needed. They're not the government, so this is

Meanwhile, I'd like to point out a little phenomenon. Facebook: We're banning "fake news". HN: Oh, this was so needed. They're not the government, so this is fantastic! Facebook: We're banning "hate speech". HN: Bravo, so brave of them. About time! A brighter future. Wonder if AI can automate this. Facebook: This is a great idea. Governments, please make this mandatory. HN: Wait, what!? Don't trust Zuck! And now, here we are. Please stop the uncharitable "why do you think the 1st amendment applies to facebook" responses. We never did. Free speech is more than just some concept that only applies to governments. When the general public ceases to respect and defend freedom of speech for each other, they will soon find the government coming for it.

ehsankia 8y ago
Should large sites try their best effort at removing this content? Absolutely. Should there be a law saying that if you fail to do so (within a ridiculously short time-frame), you will be forced to give us money or completely blocked? Absolutely not. There's a huge difference between those two. One is open to nuance and to the reality of how hard content moderation is; the other is a blind hammer that does more harm than good.
- bjt2n3904 8y ago
  > Should large sites try their best effort at removing this content "This content" being... what? Hateful posts? Falsehoods? The sites are incapable of discerning what is hateful or false. Don't blend in "the site banned User A threatening to murder Politician B" with "the site banned User A for saying hateful things". One of them is objective, the other is subjective.
  - ehsankia 8y ago
    > The sites are incapable of discerning what is hateful or false. Oh definitely, it's a grey area, hence me saying that making it law obliterates any chance for nuance.

4 ms·

Meanwhile, I'd like to point out a little phenomenon. Facebook: We're banning "fake news". HN: Oh, this was so needed. They're not the government, so this is

by bjt2n3904 8y ago

ehsankia 8y ago
Should large sites try their best effort at removing this content? Absolutely. Should there be a law saying that if you fail to do so (within a ridiculously short time-frame), you will be forced to give us money or completely blocked? Absolutely not. There's a huge difference between those two. One is open to nuance and to the reality of how hard content moderation is; the other is a blind hammer that does more harm than good.
- bjt2n3904 8y ago
  > Should large sites try their best effort at removing this content "This content" being... what? Hateful posts? Falsehoods? The sites are incapable of discerning what is hateful or false. Don't blend in "the site banned User A threatening to murder Politician B" with "the site banned User A for saying hateful things". One of them is objective, the other is subjective.
  - ehsankia 8y ago
    > The sites are incapable of discerning what is hateful or false. Oh definitely, it's a grey area, hence me saying that making it law obliterates any chance for nuance.